The CmbfJubtioesaid that the Bench desired to offer their congratulations to Mr. Wise upon his appointment to the very high office he had been called upon to fill.

ADMISSION OP A BARRIBTBR.

Mr. O'Connor moved the admission of Mr. Frederick R. Barlee, M.A. of the Sydney University, to the Bar of the Supremo Court of Now South Wales.

The application was granted.

ADMISSION OP VTTORNBTB.

The following gentlemen who hud passed the necessary examinations were admitted to practise as attorneys of the Supreme Court:-John Alexander Cormaok, Henry Oliver Heath, Thomas Hughes, Neville YVharnollffe Montagu, Walter George Parish, M.A., Charles William Schroder, James Campbell Thorn, and Jame« Francis Thomas.

CONDITIONAL ADMISSIONS.

Tho following gentlomen were conditionally admitted for a period of 12 months, to practise as attorneys of the Su- preme Court;-George Joseph Blaokwell, a solicitor of tho ¡supreme Court of Judicature, Ireland; William Davies Downing, solicitor of the Supreme Court of Judicature, Enchina: Alexander Matheson, writer to the Signet; Richard George Cameron Roberts, solicitor of tho Supreme Court of Judicature, England; Michael Joseph Nugent Ryan, solicitor of the High Court of Judicature, Ireland ; James Cleeland Shaw, solioitor of the Supreme Oourt of Victoria; and Walter Wild, solicitor of the Supreme Court of Judicature, England. The conditional admission of John Dighton was extended to the last day of the

Term, after next.

CONFIBMATION.

On the motion of Mr. Gregory Walker the conditional admission of Archibald George Mackenzie Friend was con-

firmed.

RE WILLIAM B. DWTBR.

Dr. Coghlan moved that William E. Dwyer be admitted to practise as an attorney of the Supreme Court. It appeared, however, that the applicant in question had not strictly complied with the rule of Court, which directed that notice of his intended application should bo " three several times published " in two newspapers of Sydney, and that ho had merely advertised twice in one newspaper and once in another, whereas according to the interpretation placed ' upon the rule by the Bench the notice should havo been

published three times in each of two newspapers.

Dr. Coghlan said that the construction placed upon the rule by his client was the some as that adopted in the oase s of Mr. Gillespie and other applications within his know s ledge, and it had not been challenged, although he himself

agreed with the opinion of the Bench.

The Ohibf Justice said that the Prothonotary knew of no such case as that alluded to, but the learned counsel was right about the case of Mr. Gillespie. The matter was not brought to the attention of the Court, or the chief clerk of the Supreme Court. The fact was that in that case there had been an Inadvertence» The chief clerk did not notice it. Counsel thought that it waa right, and Mr. Gillespie had been admitted, although he did not conform to the rule in question.

Dr. Coghlan: That is not the only case.

The Chisjp Justiob said that the attention of the Court had not been called to it. Mr. Dwyer might be admitted as a solicitor of the Court, but it must be announced dis- tinctly that he bad pat a wrong construction upon the rule, and in no future instance would a compliance with the rule such as he had adopted be taken as a proper compliance. Under the circumstances, the Court thought that tho rule might be departed from in this instance, but it must not be taken as a precedent. The rulas of the Court must be strictly

conformed to.

{Btfort their Sonor* the Csi« Jdsticb, Mt. Juttic*

Innbs, and Mr. Juttie* Stbphbn.)

THB QUBBIT y. WHITS.

Mr. Salomons, Q.O., and Mr. Gordon, instructed by Mr. W. T. A. Shorter (for Hindmarsh and Mayne, of Inverell), appeared, on behalf of the prisoner, to move to make absolute the rule nisi to quash the conviction. Mr. Rogers, instructed by the Crown Solicitor, appeared to show cause in support of the convic- tion. Too prisoner, George Edwin White, was tried at the last Armidale Circuit Court, before Mr. Justice Faucett and a jury of 12, on an indictment charging bim with having stolen a bullock, the property of Thomas Cook, and upon a second count with having received the bullock knowing it to be stolen. The evidence of stealing was conclusive, but it was contended by Mr. Gordon, counsel for the prisoner, that there was no evidence of ownership to go to the jury, and the point was reserved for the consideration of the Full Court. Prisoner was found guilty of stealing;, and was sentenced to three years' imprisonment with hard labour.

Mr. Salomons contended that even admitting that the bullock was stolen there must also be proof that the bullock was stolen from the person whose name was mentioned in the information, namely, Thomas Cook, and if the property was not proved to be Cook's, then, although it bo stolen, the conviction could not stand. There was no evidence

that the animal ever belonged to Cook, and supposing that that that point had not boen raised at all there was no positive evidence that the animal was notons of a numer- ous herd which Cook had sold. He cited Quoen v. Isaacs, 6 Supreme Court Reports, page 371 ; Queen v. Walker, 4th edition "Wilkinson's Magistrates' Cases," page 70S: Queen v. Law, 9 Supremo Court Reports, page 310: and Queen v. Kennedy, 3 Supreme Court Reporte, page 165.

Mr. Rogers submitted that there was ample evidence of ownership to go to the jury, and all the oases which had been cited depended upon their particular circumstance«. In the case of the Queen ?. Law, the case turned upon the point whether the animal was stolen at all. The case of the Queen v. Kennedy he considered to be in his favour, and the case of the Queen v. Walker had really no bearing upon the oase.

The Chief Justice said that, although the evidence was very slight as to the question of ownership, there waa suffi- cient to go before the jury. The history of these cattle seemed to be that four years ago the prosecutor Cook bought 400 from the Bank of New South Wales, upon which he fixed his own brand. He did not think that it could be contended that the bul- lock which was stolen did not form one of the lot whioh bad been originally bought by Cook, but it waa said, in order to destroy th» évidence of identity, that Cook bad sold some of these cattle under two durèrent qualinoa tiont, soma being fat and others store cattle, and that inas- much aait waa not possiblenow to say that this beast was not .old by Cook, it might have been one of the cattle so sold, .ad the prisoner ought to have bad the benefit of the doubt. Cook, however, stated, that ha never sold any fat or store cattle but those he sent to Melbourne, and the only fuir interpretation upon that was that both the fat and store cattle were sent to Melbourne, and that being so, taken in connection with the evidence given by Cook in cross examination, that he did not think it was possible that the beast could nave been sold, he thought there was evidence for the jury to base the conclusion they had come to upon. It seemed to him that it would have been impossible for his Honor to have taken the case from the jury on that evidence, and the conviction must be sustained.

Mr. Justice Innes thought that there was quite sufficient prima facie évidence for the purposes of this case that the animal once was Cook's, and thero was no evidonco to show that it might not have been one of those sold. The strong point in the evidence wss contained in the passage read by his Honor from Cook's evidence, namely,'-that all the

cattle he sold went to Melbourne.

Mr. Justice Stkphbn siso thought that there was sufficient evidence of ownership to justify the conviction.

The rule was discharged and the conviction uphold.

(ßejore their Ronan Mr. Juttiet Faucbtt, Mr. Juttice

Innes, and Mr Jtutiee Stbpubk.)

RE OARL SAUL V. M'DOXNBLL AND BUSCH.

Mr. Salomons, Q.O., and Mr. O'Connor, instruoted by Messrs. Creagh and Williams, appeared to move to make absolute a tule nisi to set aside an award in the above matter ; and Mr. C. B. Stephen, instructed by Messrs. Norton and Co., appeared to show cause. The facts out of which the dispute botween the parties arose were that the applicant, Carl Sahl, trading as Rabone, Feez, and Co., sold to M'Donnell and Busch about 2000 casks cement, whioh, however, the latter refused to accept on the ground that tho cement was not merchantable. The whole question was then reforred to the arbitration of Messrs. A. W. Gillios, T. A. Strickland, and R. C. Webster, who made an award in favour of M'Donnell and Busch. That award was sub- sequently referred back to the arbitrators to fill up certain omissions, and these having been supplied the award was again forwarded bv the arbitrators. It was now sought to set aside the award as finally made on several grounds, but mainly on the ground that it had not been executed by the arbitrators at the same time, in the presence of each

other.

The matter waa partly argued, and adjourned until the first day of next term, and in the meantime execution of

the award was stayed.

The Registrar's report, published in Friday's issue in reference to suits Nos. 26 Kid 27 against the lyburnia, in Admiralty, should read " Debt and costs of suit to be taxed and paid in full." The words "paid in full" wore accidentally omitted when the report was drawn up.